Quote from: valiz on February 04, 2016, 02:30:32 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 02, 2015, 06:09:46 PM

I do not think that BIP101 threatens network security, and the treat of a political civil war should not sufficient reason to not support a contentious fork.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 24, 2015, 04:06:58 AM

It is not wrong to support a contentious hard fork.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 24, 2015, 05:01:37 AM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on October 23, 2015, 11:55:35 PM

i said that a contentious hard fork threatens to break consensus and could result in multiple blockchains. that is why a contentious hard fork should be avoided.

I do not think that this is a good reason to avoid contentious hard forks.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 10:58:56 PM

Considering that the problem of tyranny of the majority has been solved in Bitcoin, 75% consensus does seem reasonable to me in order to initiate a contentious hard fork.

I will stand by those statements, made in a different time. Things are different now, I support classic and unlimited for a two megabyte blocksize.